Sparhafoc wrote:But also interestingly, a layer back there, is that she's replying to a question about how to be a vegan and eating healthily, and responding: consider bivalves, which surely suggests that she thinks that eating 'vegan' without eating bivalves is less healthy than eating 'vegan' and bivalves?

Since you haven't watched the whole video, or presumably any of her other videos, you are not in a position to speculate about what she does or does not think. And I am not interested in arguing for or against people who are not there.

Sparhafoc wrote:And another layer back: isn't it odd that Sam Harris, an academic and researcher, publicly requests help in finding out basic information readily available with even dramatically inferior researching skills? This actually causes a whole host of questions in my mind, but maybe too tangential here.

This video was made several years ago, and to my knowledge Sam Harris is not vegan. Maybe he lacks motivation, I don't know. I wish she hadn't made it for a specific individual (Sam Harris or otherwise), but I think it is well-made, concise, informative and useful.

Sparhafoc wrote:

Vego wrote:More generally, vegans are not of one mind, there are disagreements on the fine points, but that should not detract from the main goal: reducing, if possible eliminating, animal exploitation by humans, starting with the big and relatively obvious (factory farming, industrial fishing, leather/furs, poaching, puppy mills, etc).

I'm more than happy to join you or anyone with that goal, so long as we kind find a way to accommodate the diverse economic situations in which human populations across the globe find themselves in for no fault of their own.

This seems to be a variation on an argument that I have seen several times in this thread and the other: if veganism can't solve everything, then it is not worth the effort. I believe this is not reasonable. That some/many people are unable to go vegan is not a valid justification for someone who can to not go vegan.

Sparhafoc wrote:Technology's got a long way to go before veganism can really become a moral compulsion.

What technological shortcoming are you referring to?

Sparhafoc wrote:In effect, your answer really is 'I wouldn't be prepared to eat beef even if I could be convinced they don't suffer a millisecond of pain or torture", which surely should be something you're quite clear with yourself about because it hones closer and closer to the actual motivation for you refusing to eat or use animal products.

I don't understand why you are trying to make it sound like my motivation is some kind of mystery. I have said it before, and I can say it again. If I don't need to eat something, and I don't feel a compulsion to eat it, then I won't unless I am forced to do so, independently of what it is and how it was procured. And the issue with animal exploitation is not just the killing: unnecessary killing is morally objectionable regardless of the method, and the suffering caused by animal exploitation is also objectionable.

Sparhafoc wrote:The most obvious is that the moral argument is actually about the treatment of the sentient animal while it is alive.

Yes.

Sparhafoc wrote:I do not believe it is actually immoral just to kill a sentient animal, I believe there is a moral context in what leads up to that killing.

I am not completely sure, but this seems to match my position.

Sparhafoc wrote:tossing out words like 'prejudice' just looks odd.

Tossing out words like 'stupid' just looks insulting.

Sparhafoc wrote:

Vego wrote:... and you are not expected to commit suicide to save others, human or not.

Eh? Sorry, what has this got to do with anything I wrote?

You wrote "do you pass up the protein and lay down your life in sacrifice to the subjective harmony of a pig?" To me this looks like you are asking if, in your hypothetical scenario, a vegan would be willing to sacrifice their life (presumably by dying of hunger) to save the pig. Maybe you were trying to be rhetorical, but I am aware that some vegans actually make such claims. This kind of principled self-sacrifice looks like martyrdom, and it is not a requirement of veganism.

Sparhafoc wrote:I am a little lost as to what information you're taking from my posts that don't actually contain such information.

From what I can tell, you seem to be asking what you think are rhetorical questions. If this is the case, then I misunderstood what you were doing because vegans tend to receive these questions in a more serious manner and some of us give answers that are inappropriate (in my opinion).

Sparhafoc wrote:Again, your answer is there, but I just fail to see why it's padded with all these gymnastics.

Force of habit: generally having to defend veganism as I understand it and my adherence to it, while trying to keep some distance with points of view that I deem counterproductive.

Sparhafoc wrote:You seem to think I am trying to trap you or trick you into saying something, when what I am doing - as I thought was manifestly clear - is honing ever closer to the actual philosophical/ethical question as is expressly the purpose and content of the entire post you're replying to. In order to do that, one needs to strip away all the superfluous and define clearly the issue at hand.

The way I see it, you are only stripping away the superfluous that you are bringing yourself. I do my best to repeat/restate my position, and if I am not clear, please ask me again. Incidentally, I don't know if this is a technical issue, but I was actually replying to two posts, and it wasn't clear to me that both were addressing ethical veganism (especially the second one, more on that below).

Sparhafoc wrote:I am not hostile to you or to veganism

Thanks. I am not hostile to you, but I am hostile to carnism.

Sparhafoc wrote:, just hostile to bullshit and woolliness, and so I seek to scalpel it away, strip by strip until we get to the actual meat of the problem.

Or you could peel the skin until you reach the ... nevermind.

Sparhafoc wrote:

Vego wrote:A lot of crop is used as animal feed (especially for pigs and chickens, but also for cattle and even farmed fish): less farm animals will lead to less unintentional killing (because meat is less resource-efficient than directly eating plants).

So? That's irrelevant with respect to veganism.

It is relevant if you want an answer to your question "Which is more moral? To intentionally kill a sentient animal ... Or to unintentionally kill an unknown number of sentient animals ... ?". Maybe you think that it is rhetorical and there is no answer, but in this case there is one: the intentional killing in your first option includes the same kind of collateral damage as your second option, with potentially more deaths because it is less resource-efficient. This is in part why the second option is morally better.

Sparhafoc wrote:Remember, for the non-vegetarians, there's no obligation for them to worry about the deaths of passing voles in the production of the food on their plate.

So? For the "non-vegetarians" there doesn't seem to be any obligation to worry about the death of anything ending up in their plate. No worry therefore no problem?

Sparhafoc wrote:

Vego wrote:And until we develop a technology that allows us to grow plant food without killing anything (maybe growing in space, I don't know) this is simply a problem that doesn't currently have a practical solution. Animal farming does have a practical solution: consuming less of its products.

Does not make any sense: the former has just as many practical solutions as the latter, they're just not ones you're willing to countenance, for whatever reason.

I don't know what you are talking about. Individuals growing their own crops: not practical, not scalable. Replacing harvesting machines with human labor? Indoor fields? If it can be done, that would be an advantage for veganism. But if it is too expensive, then it's not really practical. I am not trying to be pedantic, it's just that veganism is at least a partial solution to the general issue of humans killing animals.

Sparhafoc wrote:Sorry - what's not biologically necessary for our survival? I do hope you don't mean that eating animals is 'biologically unnecessary for our survival' because that would be a silly contention.

Excluding special medical conditions (like allergies), human biology after infancy does not generally require the consumption of animal products, otherwise there would be no veganism. So yes, eating animals is biologically unnecessary for our survival.

Sparhafoc wrote:I think I was quite clear that I was specifically not talking about alleged health benefits.

Not clear at all. You said "Health vegans are just talking bollocks" apparently as a response to a section of my opening where I said "Health vegans claim that animal-derived foods are unhealthy and plant-based foods, especially whole plant foods, are beneficial to human health." To me that means that you object to the claims that "animal-derived foods are unhealthy" or "plant-based foods ... are beneficial to human health". And your next sentence is about "plant matter" and "major nutritional benefits of consuming meat". If you are not talking about health benefits, then I don't understand what this is about.

Sparhafoc wrote:Again, right at the start of the post you're replying to...

Sparhafoc wrote:...(ignoring any and all references to environmental practices or health reasons for now which are both equally obfuscated and prone to ignorant arguments)...

I was replying to the second of two posts, and what you just quoted was in the first one (and not at the start).

Sparhafoc wrote:As I already indicated, there's an entirely different discussion to be had there that has bugger all to do with philosophical/ethical stances on the consumption of animals, which is why I said I wouldn't address it.

I agree that it has little to do with ethics, but you did say that "health vegans are talking bollocks", and you made a claim about major nutritional benefits.

Sparhafoc wrote:It's also prone to yet more stupid arguments that are frustratingly mired in wilful bullshit which has to be stripped away from a purely fact-based perspective.

If this is like the video earlier, then you don't have a clue about what is in the material that I provided. The bullshit is from you here.

I am only concerned with well-planned vegan diets. A diet that lacks nutrients is lacking in those nutrients, nothing said here.

Sparhafoc wrote:Aside from other issues, like vitamins, riboflavin and alpha-linolenic acid, there are also studies showing not just poorer physical health with higher risk of of a set of chronic diseases such as certain cancers and allergies

Can you please provide a reference for that?

Sparhafoc wrote:But of course, one must know how such studies work

As I tried to illustrate by mentioning Plant Positive's videos in my opening.

Sparhafoc wrote:there is no one-size-fits-all, and any suggestion so is necessarily wrong.

I am not restricting myself to your particular socioeconomic circumstances. I am talking about humans as a whole.

To do otherwise is blind.

On the contrary, it is a reasonable thing to do. My arguments only apply to people who have access to adequate vegan resources (information, food, tools, etc). Saying that veganism is lacking or unhealthy because there are people who don't have access to the adequate resources is nonsensical (like saying light bulbs don't work because some people don't have electricity).

Sparhafoc wrote:For example, if a treatment became available in your country to ensure that an in vitro embryo could be given a fairly expensive treatment to ensure they never had diabetes, for instance, many people and in fact many nations might quickly come to believe it a fundamental requirement - a moral obligation - to perform that treatment (as they do with vaccinations), but if that treatment was unavailable in other countries, or if subsets of the population couldn't afford it, then it is not a situation that can be so simply defined from a moral perspective.

When an action is impossible, it doesn't make sense to talk about moral obligation. Feasibility and choice are required.

What you have said so far has been no different than meat provides nutrition, nothing exceptional about that.

Sparhafoc wrote:In the evolutionary journey that preceded our species, early human ancestors made a transition from being largely herbivorous (as can be seen by tooth and jaw morphology) to first consuming meat (through capturing carcasses), then specializing in actively hunting that meat. That transition coincided with a dramatic increase in brain volume. It's called 'the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis'.

Seems exceptional, but also hypothetical.

Sparhafoc wrote:but what happens when consumers are informed but still elect to continue the status quo?

This is a question that vegan activism is trying to address. Current answer: keep trying.

Sparhafoc wrote:As such, I personally wouldn't hold too much expectation of religion being a sufficient fulcrum from which to leverage veganism or even a reduction in animal suffering.

There are so few vegans (maybe 1%, I don't have an accurate number) that any help right now is going to look substantial to the current vegan community. I don't have any illusion for a time frame. Whether it happens through technology (lab meat) or cultural shift, an ethical vegan world is probably decades if not centuries away. Still, animals are suffering right now, and hopefully veganism is making things at least a little bit less bad.

Pet ownership has already been discussed in this thread and the previous one, and the dietary aspect of pregnancy and childhood are addressed in the resources that I linked. To make it short: veganism as I promote it requires the ability to make informed decisions, and pets and children lack this ability to a variable extent.

Sparhafoc wrote:it also seems damaging and irresponsible to most people, vegans included, to enforce a diet ideology onto growing children

Carnism is an ideology enforced onto non-vegan children. It seems to me that compassion for animals should be easier to grasp than unnecessarily killing for food.

"Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing." (Melanie Joy)

Sparhafoc wrote:But also interestingly, a layer back there, is that she's replying to a question about how to be a vegan and eating healthily, and responding: consider bivalves, which surely suggests that she thinks that eating 'vegan' without eating bivalves is less healthy than eating 'vegan' and bivalves?

Since you haven't watched the whole video, or presumably any of her other videos, you are not in a position to speculate about what she does or does not think. And I am not interested in arguing for or against people who are not there.

Well, that's clearly untrue.

If someone says X, I don't need to hear every other thing that person has ever said in order to discuss the ramifications of X.

But that is implied. Perhaps she didn't mean it like that. It is, again, not a AHA! Relax; you're not in a hostile environment.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:And another layer back: isn't it odd that Sam Harris, an academic and researcher, publicly requests help in finding out basic information readily available with even dramatically inferior researching skills? This actually causes a whole host of questions in my mind, but maybe too tangential here.

This video was made several years ago, and to my knowledge Sam Harris is not vegan. Maybe he lacks motivation, I don't know. I wish she hadn't made it for a specific individual (Sam Harris or otherwise), but I think it is well-made, concise, informative and useful.

I am really not keen on a vlog format. I'd always prefer to read as I feel more engaged. Listening to someone talk at me tends to result in me mentally wandering off.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:I'm more than happy to join you or anyone with that goal, so long as we kind find a way to accommodate the diverse economic situations in which human populations across the globe find themselves in for no fault of their own.

This seems to be a variation on an argument that I have seen several times in this thread and the other: if veganism can't solve everything, then it is not worth the effort. I believe this is not reasonable. That some/many people are unable to go vegan is not a valid justification for someone who can to not go vegan.

For my part, I'd say you should probably stop intuiting things I mean to say but factually didn't say. Perhaps you should take your own advice from earlier about not speculating what someone thinks?

Clearly, I made no such argument.

Clearly, my argument is that we need to accommodate the diverse economic situations in which human populations across the globe find themselves in for no fault of their own, which is why I wrote that. Of course, I didn't say YOU are obliged to run through a checklist of world problems prior to opting what you put in your body.

Rather, any and all arguments about veganism, whether they be arguments from health or morality, are necessarily restricted to certain groups of people and I won't apologize to you for putting that front and center because it's all too easy for people to fall into the trap of extrapolating their position out onto the rest of the world.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:Technology's got a long way to go before veganism can really become a moral compulsion.

What technological shortcoming are you referring to?

I didn't imply there's any shortcoming, rather I said that technology today is insufficient for veganism to be a moral compulsion, this is in no small part due to the unavailability of certain types of food necessary to maintain a vegan diet in a significant section of the world. When human groups all over the world have ready access to a full suite of nutrient fortified and GMO foods which permit healthy diet without meat, then and only then can veganism become a moral compunction.

I have a feeling you are going to misconstrue this again. Again, I feel it necessary to remind you that this is the internet, and consequently there are people here from many nations, not all of which have the same access to goods as your nation. If B12 fortified cereals are not available, for example, then it stands to reason that people cannot feel morally obliged to skip a key component of their healthy diets.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:In effect, your answer really is 'I wouldn't be prepared to eat beef even if I could be convinced they don't suffer a millisecond of pain or torture", which surely should be something you're quite clear with yourself about because it hones closer and closer to the actual motivation for you refusing to eat or use animal products.

I don't understand why you are trying to make it sound like my motivation is some kind of mystery.

I thought I explained all this quite clearly in my first post?

Vego wrote: I have said it before, and I can say it again. If I don't need to eat something, and I don't feel a compulsion to eat it, then I won't unless I am forced to do so, independently of what it is and how it was procured.

Sounds odd to me; far too utilitarian in one of the greatest natural joys of life.

Vego wrote: And the issue with animal exploitation is not just the killing: unnecessary killing is morally objectionable regardless of the method, and the suffering caused by animal exploitation is also objectionable.

This is exactly the kind of obfuscation I set out to address. There is no unnecessary killing involved. You may claim that it is not necessary to eat animals, but this isn't the case for 99% of humans on the planet, so it is necessary killing (killing being a far more humane way to harvest animal products than harvesting without killing them), just not for you and your economic situation.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:The most obvious is that the moral argument is actually about the treatment of the sentient animal while it is alive.

Yes.

So much padding but then you agree with me. /scratchy head emoticon

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:I do not believe it is actually immoral just to kill a sentient animal, I believe there is a moral context in what leads up to that killing.

I am not completely sure, but this seems to match my position.

Well, let's imagine a hunter-gatherer community who goes out hunting an animal - there's no moral context leading up to that killing, only the act itself. For me, the act itself does not possess a moral component, and they haven't mistreated the animal during its life in order to kill it for its products, so there's no moral context there. Where we encounter a moral problem is in modern industrial methods of rearing animals for food and materials.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:tossing out words like 'prejudice' just looks odd.

Tossing out words like 'stupid' just looks insulting.

I am getting a bit lost in all these gymnastics. You already agreed with me in essence that it would be stupid to die on principle, so how exactly is it 'insulting'? And who is it I am insulting? An imaginary person in my thought-experiment?

Honestly, it's like you're trying to take offense. Are you here just to polemicize at people, or are you here for discussion?

Vego wrote:You wrote "do you pass up the protein and lay down your life in sacrifice to the subjective harmony of a pig?" To me this looks like you are asking if, in your hypothetical scenario, a vegan would be willing to sacrifice their life (presumably by dying of hunger) to save the pig. Maybe you were trying to be rhetorical, but I am aware that some vegans actually make such claims. This kind of principled self-sacrifice looks like martyrdom, and it is not a requirement of veganism.

1) I never remotely implied it was a requirement of veganism2) You actually note yourself that some vegans WOULD make such claims, and I know many such people.3) Again, you seem to make a big song and dance of out something I write when you actively agree with me?

Same question as before... are you here just to scrap with meat-eaters? /scratchy head emoticon

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:I am a little lost as to what information you're taking from my posts that don't actually contain such information.

From what I can tell, you seem to be asking what you think are rhetorical questions. If this is the case, then I misunderstood what you were doing because vegans tend to receive these questions in a more serious manner and some of us give answers that are inappropriate (in my opinion).

Yes, I agree with you. But what I don't get is how you missed me explicitly stating what it is I am doing. I know the panoply of vegan arguments through first hand experience of decades. As such, I am addressing all the bad arguments, cutting them away, so that the remaining arguments can be examined without all the useless fluff. I thought I was quite clear in saying that was expressly what I was doing?

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:Again, your answer is there, but I just fail to see why it's padded with all these gymnastics.

Force of habit: generally having to defend veganism as I understand it and my adherence to it, while trying to keep some distance with points of view that I deem counterproductive.

Ok, so for absolute clarity, I am not answering you or pointing arguments at you. I appreciate that you started this thread, but the title is 'Why Vegan?' and I don't assume that your thread is meant to be just about you given the content of that first post.

Instead, I am addressing the 'Why Vegan?' arguments I've heard over the years from friends and acquaintances. As I've said before, my intent is to separate the wheat from the chaff - get rid of the woolly nonsensical and anti-factual arguments to hone in on the good arguments, or statements of sound moral reasoning. This is not an attempt to argue against you - I'll be clear when I disagree with something you say.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:You seem to think I am trying to trap you or trick you into saying something, when what I am doing - as I thought was manifestly clear - is honing ever closer to the actual philosophical/ethical question as is expressly the purpose and content of the entire post you're replying to. In order to do that, one needs to strip away all the superfluous and define clearly the issue at hand.

The way I see it, you are only stripping away the superfluous that you are bringing yourself.

Not at all. Regardless of whether you hold any given position, you admit yourself that you know other vegans who do hold those positions, ergo in a thread 'Why Vegan?' it seems moot to consider such arguments.

Vego wrote:I do my best to repeat/restate my position, and if I am not clear, please ask me again. Incidentally, I don't know if this is a technical issue, but I was actually replying to two posts, and it wasn't clear to me that both were addressing ethical veganism (especially the second one, more on that below).

Yes, I set aside environmental and health for reasons specified, but also noted that environmental is a more compelling argument for me, but it is highly flawed in many ways.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:I am not hostile to you or to veganism

Thanks. I am not hostile to you, but I am hostile to carnism.

That seems to contradict what you said before. I thought it was the format of our industrialized animal rearing that was what you're hostile to?

If someone raises chickens in the lap of luxury but also eats their eggs, are you hostile to that? How about if they eat the chickens?

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:, just hostile to bullshit and woolliness, and so I seek to scalpel it away, strip by strip until we get to the actual meat of the problem.

Or you could peel the skin until you reach the ... nevermind.

The fruit of the problem? Sounds too sweet to work metaphorically!

The pith?

Vego wrote:It is relevant if you want an answer to your question "Which is more moral? To intentionally kill a sentient animal ... Or to unintentionally kill an unknown number of sentient animals ... ?". Maybe you think that it is rhetorical and there is no answer, but in this case there is one: the intentional killing in your first option includes the same kind of collateral damage as your second option, with potentially more deaths because it is less resource-efficient. This is in part why the second option is morally better.

For clarity, what I was saying is that it's clearly a cop-out. The exact same reasons you give for you being able to live with those animals dying so that cereals/vegetables can end up on your plate can then be given by a meat-eater with respect to what ends up on their plate, something you appear to consider immoral. The only difference is volition (you don't want the animals to die even though they do) and it seems a very contorted moral position to end up in where you acknowledge and accept that your moral motivation for one is contradicted by the fact of your choice.

I don't think the 2nd is morally better at all - it possesses the exact same morality, assuming we're talking about the exploitation of animals to put food on our plates. We humans will accept collateral damage to the environment and to animals where it is deemed necessary for a desired outcome.

Vego wrote:So? For the "non-vegetarians" there doesn't seem to be any obligation to worry about the death of anything ending up in their plate. No worry therefore no problem?

Perplexing. Are you not arguing that veganism is better morally than eating meat? How is it morally better to kill sentient animals and not use their biologically stored nutrients, than to do so intentionally?

No disrespect to you, sir, and you're of course under no obligation to answer, but there's some spoon-bending going on here. I am not trying to be a cunt or anything, but it's pretty damn clear to me that your own arguments so far should also be applied to this situation, but you appear to not want to conceive of it. You're entitled to do what you want, don't get me wrong, and if you can live with that, then fine... but while I am not trying to trick you into admitting something, I do think it's perfectly valid of me to context any contradictions.

Perhaps I need to unpack further. I am of the mind that if one wants to understand a human idea or ideology, one doesn't ask a firm believer in that to list their reasons, one instead should look at the points of tension to see where reality bites. So for example, if one wants to understand Islam in the modern world, one doesn't ask a frothing fundie - one instead looks at the issues where Islam and the modern world intersect and see what tensions exist and the variety of ways in which different groups respond to those tensions. Another example might be about trying to understand the political system in the USA - it's no good asking a Democrat or a Republican because they'll just unpack their rehearsed spiels... instead, you need to look at the point of tension, in this case equality versus individualism and see how various groups approach it to understand a wider context.

So for me, this is one of those core tensions in modern veganism. Stripping away the fluffy wooist vegans who have only shitty ad hoc ideas supporting their preferences, and instead focusing on really sticky problems which the better educated, intelligent, and rational vegans would wrestle with.

Perhaps you do wrestle with this, and again you're not obliged in any way to spill your soul here, but you're not showing any moral interest in this component of your allegedly moral stand on the exploitation of animals.

I find this interesting. Not in a gotcha way, but in understanding how the narratives work because that's my interest.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:Does not make any sense: the former has just as many practical solutions as the latter, they're just not ones you're willing to countenance, for whatever reason.

I don't know what you are talking about. Individuals growing their own crops: not practical, not scalable. Replacing harvesting machines with human labor? Indoor fields? If it can be done, that would be an advantage for veganism. But if it is too expensive, then it's not really practical. I am not trying to be pedantic, it's just that veganism is at least a partial solution to the general issue of humans killing animals.

It's quite clear what I am saying - there are plenty of ways I could imagine right now that would result in less moles, voles, and mice (and other geographically relevant mammals) being killed in the process of agriculture, but they would all amount to an additional cost. I am pretty sure you don't mean it like this, but so far your argument is that you're not prepared to pay that cost, or that vegans wouldn't be prepared to pay that cost. But isn't that the point of morality? The cost becomes irrelevant comparative to the moral compunction?

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:Sorry - what's not biologically necessary for our survival? I do hope you don't mean that eating animals is 'biologically unnecessary for our survival' because that would be a silly contention.

Excluding special medical conditions (like allergies), human biology after infancy does not generally require the consumption of animal products, otherwise there would be no veganism. So yes, eating animals is biologically unnecessary for our survival.

Factually untrue. There is a tiny fraction of people in this world who can live on a vegan diet through access to the requisite supplements unavailable through disavowing the consumption of meat. That access can be physical, as in there is no availability of any supplements (fortified foods etc.) within any reasonable distance (I've lived in many such places), or it can be economic, where people cannot afford to buy expensive necessary supplements. Vast tracts of the world have very little food security even in best case scenarios, so your statement is factually wrong for the most part. Again, may be true for you; I expect it is, otherwise you wouldn't be so confident of it... but it is assuredly not the case for the majority of the world.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:I think I was quite clear that I was specifically not talking about alleged health benefits.

Not clear at all. You said "Health vegans are just talking bollocks" apparently as a response to a section of my opening where I said "Health vegans claim that animal-derived foods are unhealthy and plant-based foods, especially whole plant foods, are beneficial to human health." To me that means that you object to the claims that "animal-derived foods are unhealthy" or "plant-based foods ... are beneficial to human health". And your next sentence is about "plant matter" and "major nutritional benefits of consuming meat". If you are not talking about health benefits, then I don't understand what this is about.

Given your reference to my post, you must then be able to read the context I clearly set out. I was quite explicit in saying I wasn't talking about either health or environmental problems

ignoring any and all references to environmental practices or health reasons for now which are both equally obfuscated and prone to ignorant arguments)

I quite clearly and repeatedly said I was limiting my discussion to talking about moral components. Dismissing the claims of 'health' vegans does not mean I have to thereby make an argument for my position regarding their claims. As I said: they're talking bollocks. You can disagree if you like, and at some point I may be interested in discussing the alleged health benefits of veganism, but not right now. Now I am interested in the moral component.

Vego wrote:If this is like the video earlier, then you don't have a clue about what is in the material that I provided. The bullshit is from you here.

With respect, chap, I don't know you from Adam, but I assuredly know more than enough about human nutrition to not need your special sources. Given you're struggling to understand the concept of me dismissing a set of claims because I don't want to address them, I think it's a bit rich that you are trying to declare that I am bullshitting.

Perhaps you don't mean to sound so hostile, but you assuredly are coming across as such.

Vego wrote:None of that is an obstacle to veganism.

Of COURSE IT IS.... that's why you take supplements for them, or use fortified foods containing them, or you're lucky enough to live in a nation where goods are flown from all over the world presenting you with a massive choice at your local supermarket (which is all part of the huge obfuscation environmentally)... but in all these scenarios, you are actively acknowledging that these nutrients and the like are not available through simply being vegan, but require a socioeconomic landscape which is not remotely universal. Again, this being the internet, and the internet being international, you must-needs understand that an experience which may be true for you and your specific situation is not available to others, such as the people you are talking to.

The majority of people on this planet do not have access to the types of goods you may well have access to. Ergo, a real and valid obstacle to veganism is that they will lack nutrients, minerals and other dietary necessities which can more easily be provided through the sale and consumption of locally reared meat products.

I am sure that you are aware that the ability to live a nutritionally complete vegan life is a relatively modern affair. Living right where you are now (wherever that is) 50 years ago, it may have been quite difficult but perhaps possible assuming you were sufficiently wealthy. 100 years ago, it would have been very unlikely. The same scenario is still in effect throughout much of the world. Aside from a few notable locations which through happenstance evaded the nutritional obstacles of veganism (like parts of India), veganism has not been an option for essentially all humans throughout all our history to a first order of magnitude.

Again, you are sitting at the top of a complicated pyramid, and while you may be taking the opportunity and running with it, and while that may be commendable, you are still obliged to acknowledge that it is not a standard affair.

Selenium intake is more related to the selenium content of the soil than to dietary pattern. U.S. and Canadian soil appears to be adequate in selenium. Studies of vegetarians and vegans in the U.S. have shown them to have adequate intakes. Selenium is found in many foods, but in higher amounts in Brazil nuts, whole grains (whole-wheat bread, oatmeal, barley), white rice, and beans (1).

So, if you're eating cereals grown in the US, you're fine. If you've got a steady supply of Brazil nuts, white rice or beans, you're fine.... but what about those hundreds of millions of people who don't have cereals grown in the US, or have stable access to Brazil nuts, white rice, or beans?

Please indicate to me you understand this.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:Protein is beyond essential for the animal body - it's needed in nearly every function and structure of the human body.

Is this what you call a major health benefit? Being alive? Well yeah, this is definitely important, but at the same time it is the lowest bar.

Is being alive a major health benefit? Umm yes, I would say that's a major health benefit - the most major, in fact. People can stay alive for a very long time on a truly shitty nutritional intake, but that doesn't mean it's desirable or healthy.

And the notion of it being the 'lowest bar' is opaque to me. If your body doesn't get enough protein, an awful lot goes wrong because so many of your systems and organs rely on a steady intake.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:Animals provide a very ready source of protein, easily consumed, easily processed, and in large quantities - it's the reason why there are carnivorous animals.

I am not sure this is actually saying anything out of the ordinary.

It's not meant to be saying anything out of the ordinary - in fact, that's explicitly my argument; this is why it is ordinary to eat animals, because among other things they provide sufficient proteins for there to be people alive doing ordinary things.

Vego wrote:Plants also provide protein in large quantities, is that the reason why there are herbivorous animals?

Plants?

No, not all plants not at all. And you understand how herbivorous animals differ from omnivores? Herbivores spend practically their entire waking time eating because their diets are so nutritionally poor; in fact, most obligate herbivores need biological systems to allow them to extract the maximum possible nutritional benefit from the plants they eat, whether that be extremely long intestines, regurgitation, or even autocoprophagy None of these are relevant for humans - what has happened in certain parts of the world is that produce from all over the world in flown in, or nutrients are added to local staples, or chemical supplements are developed because humans cannot get the requisite nutrients from only eating the locally available plants.

Vego wrote:I am only concerned with well-planned vegan diets. A diet that lacks nutrients is lacking in those nutrients, nothing said here.

Convenient. So when you declare that a vegan diet is healthy, you explicitly mean that you're ignoring the myriad of vegan diets which are not healthy, which are nutritionally lacking.

/shrug

You can of course do that if you so choose, but you'll hopefully understand why no one else is obliged to join in on that contrivance.

Regardless, in the absence of supplements (including fortified foods) and local supermarkets flying in varied produce from all over the world, vegan diets still present significant nutritional obstacles.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:Aside from other issues, like vitamins, riboflavin and alpha-linolenic acid, there are also studies showing not just poorer physical health with higher risk of of a set of chronic diseases such as certain cancers and allergies

Can you please provide a reference for that?

Can you be specific? There are hundreds of such studies, and none of them cover all the above topics for obvious reasons.

Nutrition and Health – The Association between Eating Behavior and Various Health Parameters: A Matched Sample Study

Population-based studies have consistently shown that our diet has an influence on health. Therefore, the aim of our study was to analyze differences between different dietary habit groups in terms of health-related variables. The sample used for this cross-sectional study was taken from the Austrian Health Interview Survey AT-HIS 2006/07. In a first step, subjects were matched according to their age, sex, and socioeconomic status (SES). After matching, the total number of subjects included in the analysis was 1320 (N = 330 for each form of diet – vegetarian, carnivorous diet rich in fruits and vegetables, carnivorous diet less rich in meat, and carnivorous diet rich in meat). Analyses of variance were conducted controlling for lifestyle factors in the following domains: health (self-assessed health, impairment, number of chronic conditions, vascular risk), health care (medical treatment, vaccinations, preventive check-ups), and quality of life. In addition, differences concerning the presence of 18 chronic conditions were analyzed by means of Chi-square tests. Overall, 76.4% of all subjects were female. 40.0% of the individuals were younger than 30 years, 35.4% between 30 and 49 years, and 24.0% older than 50 years. 30.3% of the subjects had a low SES, 48.8% a middle one, and 20.9% had a high SES. Our results revealed that a vegetarian diet is related to a lower BMI and less frequent alcohol consumption. Moreover, our results showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with poorer health (higher incidences of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), a higher need for health care, and poorer quality of life. Therefore, public health programs are needed in order to reduce the health risk due to nutritional factors.

Again, the point is in direct contrast to what you claimed: being a nutritionally healthy vegan is possible, but rare. There are a lot more ways that veganism can be unhealthy than the ways in which it is healthy. For the latter, there are socioeconomic and geographic factors to take into account.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:But of course, one must know how such studies work

As I tried to illustrate by mentioning Plant Positive's videos in my opening.

I appreciate you want to talk about these videos, but I am sorry to say I am not keen on them as a source. Not only do I not take information well from such a passive format, they also require me to do too much leg-work when it comes to fact-checking. I'd prefer to read articles in reputable science journals for population studies. I also am not keen on the idea in and of itself. I start from a position of neither believing nor disbelieving a notion, and I don't usually find that a source which is expressly set up to make arguments for a side is a very useful source of material to judge from.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:there is no one-size-fits-all, and any suggestion so is necessarily wrong.

This is not a claim that I made.

I wasn't suggesting you did. It does, however, remain true.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:I am not restricting myself to your particular socioeconomic circumstances. I am talking about humans as a whole.

To do otherwise is blind.

On the contrary, it is a reasonable thing to do. My arguments only apply to people who have access to adequate vegan resources (information, food, tools, etc). Saying that veganism is lacking or unhealthy because there are people who don't have access to the adequate resources is nonsensical (like saying light bulbs don't work because some people don't have electricity).

We're not talking about whether something works or not, we're talking about morality and health. You can't simply declare something healthy for humans if it's absent for most humans. I gave you an analogy before regarding vaccination.

Again, you're not obliged to take anything else into account at all, but for me at least, it makes your argument weaker and even ineffective if you're unwilling to take the majority of the world into account in your proclamations.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:For example, if a treatment became available in your country to ensure that an in vitro embryo could be given a fairly expensive treatment to ensure they never had diabetes, for instance, many people and in fact many nations might quickly come to believe it a fundamental requirement - a moral obligation - to perform that treatment (as they do with vaccinations), but if that treatment was unavailable in other countries, or if subsets of the population couldn't afford it, then it is not a situation that can be so simply defined from a moral perspective.

When an action is impossible, it doesn't make sense to talk about moral obligation. Feasibility and choice are required.

Yes, that's my argument, but you've just contradicted yourself. For most of the humans living on this planet now, veganism is not feasible, and the choice to do so in the absence of great personal expense would be self-harmful.

I don't know where you live, but I do know that I don't live there. So if you're going to have a discussion with me, am I obliged to ignore the circumstances and everywhere else and pretend that only your circumstances are valid?

I don't think I am being unfair in the slightest to expect you to agree to this.

What you have said so far has been no different than meat provides nutrition, nothing exceptional about that.

Nutrition is vital to health, so what's your issue with my argument?

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:In the evolutionary journey that preceded our species, early human ancestors made a transition from being largely herbivorous (as can be seen by tooth and jaw morphology) to first consuming meat (through capturing carcasses), then specializing in actively hunting that meat. That transition coincided with a dramatic increase in brain volume. It's called 'the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis'.

Seems exceptional, but also hypothetical.

I don't understand what you mean by 'exceptional' there, but it's only as 'hypothetical' as any and all other aspects of palaeobiology. There is hard, empirical data which needs to be explained, the models best suited to explaining that, most capable of corralling it into a framework of understand present the most utility. We know that human ancestors underwent significant morphological changes that coincided with the increase in consumption of meat. Obviously, it is more complex than just a post hoc ergo propter hoc, but the fact remains that both anatomical morphology showing signs of moving away from a herbivorous heavy diet and material culture showing increased use of hunting implements coincide with other evolutionary components like dramatically increased brain size. On the one hand, we may have needed to be more intelligent to hunt animals in a challenging and predatory environment such as increased group size and cooperation, but on the other we would have needed the nutrients to power the medium in which that intelligence resides.

Please note that numerous studies have confirmed the negative correlation between brain size and gut length across all vertebrates. Strict herbivores are factually smaller brained. Don't think this is meant as a jab and thereby confuse my motivation and tie this up in obfuscation. I was quite clear about why I find this notion intriguing.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:but what happens when consumers are informed but still elect to continue the status quo?

This is a question that vegan activism is trying to address. Current answer: keep trying.

Keep trying what? If consumer A is equally informed as consumer B, what are you 'trying' to do?

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:As such, I personally wouldn't hold too much expectation of religion being a sufficient fulcrum from which to leverage veganism or even a reduction in animal suffering.

There are so few vegans (maybe 1%, I don't have an accurate number)...

I think that right at this instant in history, that's probably close to the maximum that can be maintained globally. I expect this number to grow dramatically over the coming decades.

Vego wrote:... that any help right now is going to look substantial to the current vegan community.

Again, the issue is that the fictional narratives at the core of these religions are all a product of the very agricultural revolutions that put animals in cages, considered man the rightful master and user of these animals having total divinely-mandated dominion over them. I wouldn't be getting into bed with them as I can't imagine how they can scripturally be aligned with your cause.

Vego wrote: I don't have any illusion for a time frame. Whether it happens through technology (lab meat) or cultural shift, an ethical vegan world is probably decades if not centuries away. Still, animals are suffering right now, and hopefully veganism is making things at least a little bit less bad.

See? We agree again, but earlier you were asking me about technological shortcomings. I actually think that this is an exciting idea to discuss; what forces will shape the future, and consequently how will humans change in the future environments they create? Of course, socioeconomic factors will always be present: one day it will simply be too expensive to eat animals compared to the artificial versions, and only the rich and daring will dine on the flesh of once-living animals.

As for your last sentence, while I appreciate the sentiment, I don't think it's actually true at all. There are a lot of damning aspects to our modern technological global culture, and waste alone accounts for more losses than vegan non-consumption makes up for.

Pet ownership has already been discussed in this thread and the previous one, and the dietary aspect of pregnancy and childhood are addressed in the resources that I linked. To make it short: veganism as I promote it requires the ability to make informed decisions, and pets and children lack this ability to a variable extent.

I didn't read the entire thread before posting.

However, I agree with your position regarding dependents. Sadly, I know too many people who don't recognize this.

Vego wrote:

Sparhafoc wrote:it also seems damaging and irresponsible to most people, vegans included, to enforce a diet ideology onto growing children

Carnism is an ideology enforced onto non-vegan children.

Not so because, except for the briefest moment of modern history and an extremely restricted geographical socioeconomic situation, eating meat sometimes was and is a nutritional necessity.

Vego wrote:It seems to me that compassion for animals should be easier to grasp than unnecessarily killing for food.

I would argue, and I am sure you realize this yourself, that the two are not actually mutually exclusive given that I've already addresses the inapplicable adverb.

Kwashiorkor is a form of severe protein malnutrition characterized by edema, and an enlarged liver with fatty infiltrates. Sufficient calorie intake, but with insufficient protein consumption, distinguishes it from marasmus. Kwashiorkor cases occur in areas of famine or poor food supply.[1] Cases in the developed world are rare.

The defining sign of kwashiorkor in a malnourished child is pitting edema (swelling of the ankles and feet). Other signs include a distended abdomen, an enlarged liver with fatty infiltrates, thinning of hair, loss of teeth, skin depigmentation and dermatitis. Children with kwashiorkor often develop irritability and anorexia. Generally, the disease can be treated by adding protein to the diet; however, it can have a long-term impact on a child's physical and mental development, and in severe cases may lead to death

...

Kwashiorkor is a severe form of malnutrition, caused by a deficiency in dietary protein. The extreme lack of protein causes an osmotic imbalance in the gastro-intestinal system causing swelling of the gut diagnosed as an edema or retention of water.

Having now read the rest of the thread, I now see the pattern I was previously missing with Vego's often unnecessarily hostile and obfuscating replies to me.

I noted this earlier: some people are more motivated by establishing their superior morality over their defined out-group than with any of the content or clarity of their alleged moral reasoning.

From your selected quote, Vego:

Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing. (Melanie Joy)

Melanie makes an elementary error here. The reality is that the term 'violent' there is wholly superfluous: this is how ideology works, full stop. Create an out-group to thereby define an otherwise poorly conceived in-group, define yourself in terms of not being like them, and express your disdain for the way they behave, publicly if you want brownie points.

Yeah, my grandma used to use this argument when I'd leave some food on my plate. "You must eat because children in Africa go hungry"

This entire topic seems bizarre.

Vego's main argument seems to be that we should limit our reliance on animals because it's causing pain and suffering to animals and it has negative impact on the environment.He never said it was possible to completely eliminate meat in our diet, he acknowledged that it may be impossible for some people due to poverty or lack of access to alternative foods. He never claimed to be speaking for all vegans.

It looks to me like a lot of the replies he got were meant for some imaginary arch-vegan-villain.

I guess to some meat is like a drug and mere suggestion of not using it makes them anxious.

I admitted I was generalizing, because as stated I have spent a lot of time on this topic. If you spend enough time arguing with people on any topic you're probably going to make generalizations. I addressed most of what vego actually said, whilst trying to add context based on the many discussions I've already had on the subject.

I also conceded that vego could be a true exception in that he does everything he can reasonably do to avoid (or at least not fund) industries that cause animal suffering, death and exploitation - but then he revealed that he wasn't. Which is what I suspected. He even says he doesn't worry about the animals that are killed directly during the production of certain food produce that he eats.

I apologize to vego for any undue rudeness on my part, but these conversations can get frustrating when obvious and clearly defined problems are not acknowledged.

I feel no need to rehash the points that I and others have already made, in so far as I can tell they all stand firm.

*SD* wrote:I also conceded that vego could be a true exception in that he does everything he can reasonably do to avoid (or at least not fund) industries that cause animal suffering, death and exploitation - but then he revealed that he wasn't. Which is what I suspected. He even says he doesn't worry about the animals that are killed directly during the production of certain food produce that he eats.

You require him to be perfect. No one is perfect. We'll probably never eliminate unnecessary suffering entirely but that's no reason to stop trying.

No, I don't require him to be perfect, I have no idea where you had that idea from considering he asked me that exact question:

Vego wrote:Are vegans required to be perfect?

And I replied with:

*SD* wrote:No. But when arguing for veganism it would be more productive and successful overall if they were more consistent with their own position

My objection here, is that Vego, in common with most vegans, arbitrarily declares it's ok to kill animals as a bi-product/collateral damage but not deliberately. I think collateral damage is actually worse than a deliberate act. And compounding the problem further in his admission that he doesn't even care about those animals killed during the production of wheat/soy/whatever.

I'm not calling on Vego to go to outrageous lengths to avoid animal deaths. I don't expect him to stop driving/taking transport or get rid of every possession he has that's involved animal suffering in the process. But the fact that he doesn't even so much as grow his own veg (thus not paying into the death of field mammals during harvesting) makes him a hypocrite, and drastically reduces his capacity to argue his point, and completely diminishes his right to preach at others about how horrible they are for eating meat. Vego is no more virtuous than anyone else in this thread, he just draws the line in a different place.

I will not reply to everything, please ask again if I miss something important.

Sparhafoc wrote:consider bivalves, which surely suggests that she thinks that eating 'vegan' without eating bivalves is less healthy than eating 'vegan' and bivalves?

...

If someone says X, I don't need to hear every other thing that person has ever said in order to discuss the ramifications of X.

But that is implied.

No, saying that bivalves can be healthy does not imply that not eating them is less healthy.

Sparhafoc wrote:Relax; you're not in a hostile environment.

Thank you. For what it's worth, I am not angry or anything like that. However I am disappointed when I fail to transmit my message.

Sparhafoc wrote:I won't apologize to you for putting that front and center because it's all too easy for people to fall into the trap of extrapolating their position out onto the rest of the world.

It's not about apologizing, you are doing the same thing as SD: you are arguing against people that are not there, or against arguments that I did not make (you seem to be confirming this later, more below).

Sparhafoc wrote:I have a feeling you are going to misconstrue this again.

I don't deny the practical limitations of veganism (I repeated myself several times on this point in the previous thread and in this one). However, what you are talking about does not apply to the individuals who do have access to the necessary material. These individuals (of which you may or may not be part, I don't know) are the ones who have the burden of choice. To restate my position regarding the world: I wish for the world to go vegan, but I don't know to what extent it is possible, or how it could be accomplished efficiently.

I am trying to tell you that what you are saying is not an argument against veganism. If you are not trying to argue against veganism, then it would be fair to say that I misunderstood your point.

Sparhafoc wrote:

Vego wrote:If I don't need to eat something, and I don't feel a compulsion to eat it, then I won't unless I am forced to do so, independently of what it is and how it was procured.

Sounds odd to me; far too utilitarian in one of the greatest natural joys of life.

I don't understand what is odd there. It doesn't even have anything to do with utilitarianism. If I don't feel like doing something, I won't unless I have to (I am talking about conscious decisions, not random actions). Isn't that basic behavior for any human (or even just sentient) being?

Sparhafoc wrote:You already agreed with me in essence that it would be stupid to die on principle

No. Just because I disagree with an opinion doesn't mean that I think it is 'stupid'.

Sparhafoc wrote:who is it I am insulting? An imaginary person in my thought-experiment?

You are insulting the non-imaginary persons who actually think like this in real life.

Sparhafoc wrote:you seem to make a big song and dance

You asked me "what has this got to do with anything I wrote?" and I gave you my answer to this specific question.

Sparhafoc wrote:I am addressing the 'Why Vegan?' arguments I've heard over the years from friends and acquaintances.

Thank you for making this clear.

Sparhafoc wrote:

Vego wrote:you are only stripping away the superfluous that you are bringing yourself.

Not at all.

You said earlier that you are "addressing all the bad arguments". Since apparently you were not talking to me, the "superfluous" (your so-called "bad arguments") is what you are bringing yourself.

Sparhafoc wrote:That seems to contradict what you said before. I thought it was the format of our industrialized animal rearing that was what you're hostile to?

There is no contradiction, you are just misreading me. I object to unnecessary killing and cruelty. I see carnism negatively because it provides rationalizations for these activities (for example: "it's tradition", "it's necessary", "I don't care", "it's humane", "the taste").

Sparhafoc wrote:If someone raises chickens in the lap of luxury but also eats their eggs, are you hostile to that?

Who defines luxury? This assumes that being bred to regularly push a resource-depleting hard object through a cloaca is an acceptable price to pay for whatever humans consider luxurious to a so-called inferior being. I don't know if ethical eggs are a meaningful concept. I suspect not, but dietary veganism eliminates the question.

Sparhafoc wrote:How about if they eat the chickens?

As long as they don't kill the animal unnecessarily (or perform any other act of cruelty), what they eat is not my concern. Something that is not immediately apparent in this example: genetically modifying a species to cause a specific behavior can be a form of cruelty (example: chicken bred specifically to "naturally" produce as many eggs as possible).

Sparhafoc wrote:The only difference is volition

No, it's not the only difference, which is what I was trying to explain. And whether it is the only difference or not, it is a morally significant one.

Sparhafoc wrote:it possesses the exact same morality

No.

Sparhafoc wrote:We humans will accept collateral damage to the environment and to animals where it is deemed necessary for a desired outcome.

Killing on purpose and unnecessarily is not collateral damage. Rodents in the fields are not being exploited, we don't put them here for our own benefit.

Sparhafoc wrote:Perplexing.

Indeed. Here is what happened: I told you that less farm animals would lead to less collateral damage, and you answered that it is irrelevant and then mysteriously added "Remember, for the non-vegetarians, there's no obligation for them to worry about the deaths of passing voles in the production of the food on their plate". To me it looks like you are saying that non-vegetarianism is morally equivalent or better because non-vegetarians don't worry about what is on their plate, and this is what I was trying to convey.

Sparhafoc wrote:How is it morally better to kill sentient animals and not use their biologically stored nutrients, than to do so intentionally?

The rodents/collateral damage are not killed for their meat, they are killed because of a limitation of our technology (we don't know how to prevent them from being here in the first place). The sentient beings that we kill for their stored nutrients don't have to be killed for this purpose because we can get our food in a different way; in addition, raising these being already creates collateral damage (which is added on top of what is already there in an omnivorous diet). The collateral damage exists in both cases, but there is more of it in the case of meat farming.

Sparhafoc wrote:It's quite clear what I am saying - there are plenty of ways I could imagine right now that would result in less moles, voles, and mice (and other geographically relevant mammals) being killed in the process of agriculture

It is only clear to you. Can you please give a few examples of such ways?

Sparhafoc wrote:your argument is that you're not prepared to pay that cost, or that vegans wouldn't be prepared to pay that cost

Veganism as I defend it is about practicality. For people who have access to the resources, going vegan does not involve a new technology, or paying more, or any other cost than lifestyle changes (including the time to get informed about diet).

Sparhafoc wrote:your statement is factually wrong for the most part

No, my statement is correct. You are the one confusing biological necessity with access to resources.

Sparhafoc wrote:I was quite explicit in saying I wasn't talking about either health or environmental problems

You were explicitly talking about health in what I quoted.

Sparhafoc wrote:Please indicate to me you understand this.

Please understand this: I am not making an argument for people who don't have reasonable access to proper resources.

Sparhafoc wrote:Convenient. So when you declare that a vegan diet is healthy, you explicitly mean that you're ignoring the myriad of vegan diets which are not healthy, which are nutritionally lacking.

As I have stated multiple times, the first step is to get informed. It is not my claim that everyone in the world can go vegan right now. As far as I know, a well-planned vegan diet is healthy (I don't just declare it, but you don't seem to accept my references). I don't have to go any further healthwise to justify ethical veganism.

Sparhafoc wrote:Can you be specific?

I can't be specific when you are the one making the claim. The article you provided states:- "only 2.2% of all participants consumed a vegetarian diet, these individuals were analyzed as one dietary habit group." ("vegetarian" here includes but is not limited to vegans)- "no statements can be made whether the poorer health in vegetarians in our study is caused by their dietary habit or if they consume this form of diet due to their poorer health status. We cannot state whether a causal relationship exists, but describe ascertained associations. Moreover, we cannot give any information regarding the long-term consequences of consuming a special diet nor concerning mortality rates."- "Further limitations include the measurement of dietary habits as a self-reported variable and the fact that subjects were asked how they would describe their eating behavior, without giving them a clear definition of the various dietary habit groups."- "Another limitation concerns the lack of detailed information regarding nutritional components (e.g. the amount of carbohydrates, cholesterol, or fatty acids consumed)."

In other words, not only do we not know causation, but we do not even have enough information to assess the quality of the diet (were they following proper dietary advice? eating enough?) or even what happens specifically to the few vegans.

Sparhafoc wrote:being a nutritionally healthy vegan is possible, but rare

This is a misleading and unjustified statement. Is it rare because there aren't many vegans, or rare because a well-planned vegan diet is unhealthy?

Sparhafoc wrote:There are a lot more ways that veganism can be unhealthy than the ways in which it is healthy

This is vague and not specific to veganism (there are generally more ways to fail than to succeed at many things in life).

Sparhafoc wrote:I don't usually find that a source which is expressly set up to make arguments for a side is a very useful source of material to judge from.

Still the same: you don't have a clue about what Plant Positive does, you are just assuming based on your personal biases (I even gave you a link to his blog with the scripts so that you don't have to watch the videos, although some of the material requires the videos).

I don't think it is possible to run an experiment on billions of people, and the experiments I am aware of are always performed on samples (a few commented examples are given here where some studies have thousands of vegans, and some have been going on for decades). And I don't simply declare it: "It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." (source). I am not an expert in nutrition, but they are.

Sparhafoc wrote:it makes your argument weaker and even ineffective if you're unwilling to take the majority of the world into account in your proclamations.

My statements are in line with mainstream science.

Sparhafoc wrote:you've just contradicted yourself

No I haven't. You are refusing to accept that my argument for going vegan is restricted to people with access to proper ressources. However, to the extent that we share a similar biology, humans worldwide do not have a biological requirement for animal products, regardless of their access to resources.

Sparhafoc wrote:Nutrition is vital to health, so what's your issue with my argument?

You claimed that it is a major health benefit, but this is an exageration based on what you have said. And well-planned vegan diet can do at least as much.

Sparhafoc wrote:Keep trying what?

To raise awareness, discuss and find new arguments.

Sparhafoc wrote:

Vego wrote:Carnism is an ideology enforced onto non-vegan children.

Not so because, except for the briefest moment of modern history and an extremely restricted geographical socioeconomic situation, eating meat sometimes was and is a nutritional necessity.

Getting enough nutrients is a nutritional necessity, but eating meat is not a nutritional necessity. Your false belief is an example of what carnism does to people.

Sparhafoc wrote:Ergo, the notion that this is a low bar is far abstracted from reality.

You are confusing nutrition at the biological level and practicality. A lack of protein is not a lack of meat.

Sparhafoc wrote:The reality is that the term 'violent' there is wholly superfluous: this is how ideology works

Carnism is a violent ideology because it tries to justify killing when it can be avoided. Veganism does not solve everything, but it is better.

"Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing." (Melanie Joy)

Last edited by Vego on Sat May 19, 2018 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

*SD* wrote:he doesn't worry about the animals that are killed directly during the production of certain food produce that he eats.

I don't worry about what is beyond my control. I don't worry about people getting Ebola on the other side of the planet, not because I don't care, but because there is little that I can do (I already give money to NGOs, and I hope that people with the appropriate qualifications are working on it).

You admitted yourself that asking individuals to grow their own crops was a bit much (it is not clear to me whether you think that growing lettuce is supposed to compensate for wheat). If I had the option to buy a cruelty-free diet, I would (as long as it fits my budget). By contrast, meat requires killing, and dairy and eggs involve cruelty. Lab meat is not commercially available yet, but veganism is available today.

*SD* wrote:No, I don't require him to be perfect

Yes you do. Essentially you are trying to blame vegans for not being vegan enough, even though merely being (dietary) vegan is already a major improvement over being non-vegan. You complain about "does [not do] everything he can reasonably do" because you refuse to accept that lifestyle changes can take time. Human life is not limited to eating, we also have to deal with family, work, relationships, rest, and so on. It is reasonable to expect improvement over time, but blaming individuals for not doing everything right now is not (and is at best an argument against individuals, not veganism).

*SD* wrote:Vego, in common with most vegans, arbitrarily declares it's ok to kill animals as a bi-product/collateral damage

Rather than "arbitrarily declare", I tried to provide justifications. Even though numbers aren't available, I believe that dietary veganism causes less collateral damage than omnivorous diets, and I gave my reasons. And even without the comparison, not wanting to kill unnecessarily is morally better than wanting to kill when it could be avoided.

This laser focus on specific points misses the main idea of ethical veganism. I don't expect people to solve an equation to conclude that veganism is mathematically best/better. We are causing a lot of harm to non-humans, and we should avoid doing so when we can: this is, I think, a reasonably simple idea. Meat in supermarkets/restaurants is evidence of death, anyone can see it, and it is avoidable. Dietary veganism is biologically possible, as evidenced by the existence of healthy vegans, multiple scientific studies, and modern mainstream scientific understanding of human nutrition. When applicable, going vegan (even partially: vegan-at-home, vegan 21 days a year, meatless Monday, etc) is better than not.

*SD* wrote:Vego is no more virtuous than anyone else in this thread

I am not interested in a dick-measuring contest. From my perspective, "vegan me" is a better person than the old "non-vegan me". And I believe this self-improvement would apply to anyone who can go vegan (even partially).

"Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing." (Melanie Joy)

It isn't beyond your control. You are in control of what you do. You choose to fund the industrial wheat process when you don't have to - that is within your control.

You admitted yourself that asking individuals to grow their own crops was a bit much

No, I did not. What I said was individuals growing their own wheat is asking a bit much. This is purely down to the sheer volume needed to be of any use, rather than any technical difficulty in growing it.

meat requires killing

So does wheat and you don't care. You just want to eat wheat so you're fine with all the death that comes with it.

and dairy and eggs involve cruelty

You've already been refuted on this point. Milking cows is not cruel, hens laying eggs is not cruel. We've been through the factory farming element of it, both DG and I explicitly stated that we were not referring to factory farming. I openly condemned it, in fact. I'll happily join you in any anti factory farming crusade you choose to pioneer, but making a blanket statement about dairy and eggs necessarily involving cruelty is simply false.

Yes you do

No, Vego. I do not. And your continued insistence that I do will not change this fact. I've said a minimum of twice that perfection is not required, I elaborated as to what exactly I'm talking about. You're just too damn lazy to grow your own veg, you'd rather buy it from industrial scale producers than zip out and buy a few grow bags. Growing your own is fairly easy, requires very little financial outlay or in-depth botanical knowledge. Any old dumb ass can do it. There's even a brand over here called "Grow Your Own" which is targeted at beginners. You'd rather just keep making excuses as to why you "can't" do this than actually go and do it.

Essentially you are trying to blame vegans for not being vegan enough

That's actually not a bad way to put it. Vegans, and this includes you so stop with the nonsense about "arguing with people who aren't here" or whatever you said up there, DO NOT DO as much as they reasonably can to follow their ideology. I've already said there's no need to go to insane lengths, but the majority (you included) don't do even half what they could realistically do to not fund the deaths of animals. All you're doing is not buying meat and berating others for eating cheese. This is why the whole "vegans are hypocrites" argument comes up as often as it does - because it's true.

because you refuse to accept that lifestyle changes can take time

Bullshit. Fucking bullshit. How long would it take you to nip out and buy some pots and seeds, Vego? This is just another excuse not to do something because you can't be bothered. You can be bothered to sit in front of a screen and write many lengthy posts on the internet arguing with total strangers because they had a milkshake but you can't be bothered to spend a little bit of time making your self less reliant on industrial farming. I do it and I'm not even vegetarian never mind vegan, I eat meat all the damn time.

Human life is not limited to eating, we also have to deal with family, work, relationships, rest, and so on

So? What's your point? Do you think I don't have the same and probably more to deal with too? I work anything up to 90+ hours a week and I still manage to chuck a few seeds around.

It is reasonable to expect improvement over time, but blaming individuals for not doing everything right now is not (and is at best an argument against individuals, not veganism).

Veganism is comprised of individuals. You're one of them. More excuses. When would you like to start growing your own veg? What about tomorrow? Next week? After all we can't just have people doing things "now" can we, that just wouldn't do.

Rather than "arbitrarily declare", I tried to provide justifications

I don't accept your justifications because they're nothing more than lame excuses for laziness.

I believe that dietary veganism causes less collateral damage than omnivorous diets

I know you've said you "believe" it does but you'll need to explain why you believe this. Most collateral damage (as in animal death collateral damage) is caused within the arable sector of farming, not the livestock sector. I'm trying to think of something that would be collateral damage within livestock farming and nothing is immediately springing to mind. I'll post again if it does.

I know what you're saying here, but this is feeble and flimsy at best. This does a disservice to the label and as I argued earlier, reduces veganism to anything anyone wants it to be. If veganism is this flexible then it doesn't really tell you anything about the person claiming to be vegan. It's like when someone says they're a Christian, there are so many different flavours who all believe different nonsense that saying "I'm a Christian" tells us pretty much nothing.

I am not interested in a dick-measuring contest. From my perspective, "vegan me" is a better person than the old "non-vegan me". And I believe this self-improvement would apply to anyone who can go vegan (even partially).

I'm happy that you're happy. I still contend that this notion of "partial veganism" is problematic. It's like being partially pregnant. You either are or you bloody aren't.

I'm not eating meat right now, so am I being vegan right now? What about when I have steak later on? Have I been partially vegan today?

Vego wrote:Indeed. Here is what happened: I told you that less farm animals would lead to less collateral damage, and you answered that it is irrelevant and then mysteriously added "Remember, for the non-vegetarians, there's no obligation for them to worry about the deaths of passing voles in the production of the food on their plate"

I think, and Sparhafoc can correct me if I'm mistaken, what is being said here is that we as non-vegans don't worry about collateral damage during harvesting, we're ok with it, but you as a vegan probably should care about it and yet you don't. I think that's what he was trying to say, and I've only addressed it as I have also made this point in this thread, and in other discussions I've had.

*SD* wrote:I want to just briefly address one part of your reply to Sparhafoc:

Vego wrote:Indeed. Here is what happened: I told you that less farm animals would lead to less collateral damage, and you answered that it is irrelevant and then mysteriously added "Remember, for the non-vegetarians, there's no obligation for them to worry about the deaths of passing voles in the production of the food on their plate"

I think, and Sparhafoc can correct me if I'm mistaken, what is being said here is that we as non-vegans don't worry about collateral damage during harvesting, we're ok with it, but you as a vegan probably should care about it and yet you don't. I think that's what he was trying to say, and I've only addressed it as I have also made this point in this thread, and in other discussions I've had.

Indeed, it is rather suspect that the chap keeps responding to arguments that aren't being made, and not responding to arguments that are being made.

Clearly, eating meat is contingent on the death of animals, whereas veganism is contingent on eating food that does not require the death of animals. Ergo, the collateral deaths of sundry animals in producing meat for consumption is not necessarily a concern for meat-eaters (although it may be, but it's not contingent), but should absolutely be a concern for a vegan in the production of nominally vegan foods.

When it's not, there's something going on under the hood that's being ignored. That it comes packaged in a tu quoque is genuinely perplexing given the first point, but the effort expended in not addressing that problem, and the repeated attempts to deflect it suggests the old cognitive bias is in operation here protecting against discomforting notions.

So does wheat and you don't care. You just want to eat wheat so you're fine with all the death that comes with it.

How does wheat production require killing animals? Is it for sacrifice or something?

*SD* wrote:

Essentially you are trying to blame vegans for not being vegan enough

That's actually not a bad way to put it. Vegans, and this includes you so stop with the nonsense about "arguing with people who aren't here" or whatever you said up there, DO NOT DO as much as they reasonably can to follow their ideology. I've already said there's no need to go to insane lengths, but the majority (you included) don't do even half what they could realistically do to not fund the deaths of animals. All you're doing is not buying meat and berating others for eating cheese. This is why the whole "vegans are hypocrites" argument comes up as often as it does - because it's true.

It seems that you've created this image of a morally impeccable vegan in your head and you blame Vego for not adhering to it. It's brilliant strategy, really, You can't lose

All Vego is doing is "not buying meat". I'd say that's a lot if the objective is to decrease animal suffering.

*SD* wrote:

because you refuse to accept that lifestyle changes can take time

Bullshit. Fucking bullshit. How long would it take you to nip out and buy some pots and seeds, Vego? This is just another excuse not to do something because you can't be bothered. You can be bothered to sit in front of a screen and write many lengthy posts on the internet arguing with total strangers because they had a milkshake but you can't be bothered to spend a little bit of time making your self less reliant on industrial farming. I do it and I'm not even vegetarian never mind vegan, I eat meat all the damn time.

If you look at other issues like rise of democracy, end of slaver, women's rights and so on it's clear that such life style changes don't take overnight. Humans have been relying on animals for millennia. It's hard to expect a quick change in this regard.

*SD* wrote:

I believe that dietary veganism causes less collateral damage than omnivorous diets

I know you've said you "believe" it does but you'll need to explain why you believe this. Most collateral damage (as in animal death collateral damage) is caused within the arable sector of farming, not the livestock sector. I'm trying to think of something that would be collateral damage within livestock farming and nothing is immediately springing to mind. I'll post again if it does.

See? One word, collateral, and we've made meat eating more vegan than wheat eating.

*SD* wrote:If veganism is this flexible then it doesn't really tell you anything about the person claiming to be vegan. It's like when someone says they're a Christian, there are so many different flavours who all believe different nonsense that saying "I'm a Christian" tells us pretty much nothing.

Vego explicitly said that he wasn't speaking for all people using the label "vegan". He also explained what he meant by it. You set a standard for being a vegan and blame Vego for not upholding it.

Sparhafoc wrote:Indeed, it is rather suspect that the chap keeps responding to arguments that aren't being made, and not responding to arguments that are being made.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think both You and SD admitted to addressing "general vegan arguments" and not Vego's arguments specifically.

Sparhafoc wrote:Clearly, eating meat is contingent on the death of animals, whereas veganism is contingent on eating food that does not require the death of animals. Ergo, the collateral deaths of sundry animals in producing meat for consumption is not necessarily a concern for meat-eaters (although it may be, but it's not contingent), but should absolutely be a concern for a vegan in the production of nominally vegan foods.

By that logic we should stop worrying about global warming because we can't stop CO₂ emissions entirely.

If Vego managed to eliminate all things that cause any animal suffering from his diet/life and one day was riding his bike and swallowed a bug, I bet you'd jump out of bushes and shout that he wasn't a true vegan.

No, you just gave your personal opinion. In addition (in relation to the previous posts), legal does not necessarily mean ethical. Animal farming is exploitative by nature and comes with many issues; I gave a few examples in previous posts.

*SD* wrote:No, Vego. I do not.

Yes you do, you are in denial. The perfection that you demand is your personal standard for what you think a vegan should do.

*SD* wrote:making excuses as to why you "can't"

Please quote me saying that I "can't". You are so focused on this one specific activity ("Growing your own") that you seem to have lost sense of perspective. Vegans don't have to grow their own food to have a positive impact on the world. And it is not required for the label either. You can keep yelling it in all caps until you are blue in the face, you are simply wrong.

*SD* wrote:How long would it take you to nip out and buy some pots and seeds, Vego?

Just buying wouldn't take long, but growing my own wheat, soy and other beans? Several months I guess.

I agree that not buying meat isn't so hard. But I don't berate anyone, you are the one doing that.

*SD* wrote:Veganism is comprised of individuals.

An ideology is not a group of individuals.

*SD* wrote:you'll need to explain why you believe this

I already did, and you said that you don't accept my justifications.

*SD* wrote:I'm trying to think of something that would be collateral damage within livestock farming and nothing is immediately springing to mind.

Small animals killed during the production of animal feed.

*SD* wrote:You either are or you bloody aren't.

No, reality is not that simple. If someone wants to be vegan for one month every year, then that's just what they are. Use another label if you want, what matters to me is that they are reducing the demand for animal products.

"Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing." (Melanie Joy)

It doesn't really "require" it in principle, it's just that in practice small animals interfere with crop production and they have to be removed on purpose (through various means including pesticides and predators/dogs) or are killed accidentally by the harvesting machines. It is a valid concern, and one that I did not ignore despite claims to the contrary. however it is not one that can be easily addressed at the consumer level.

WarK wrote:All Vego is doing is "not buying meat".

Minor correction: SD used a shortcut here, and I don't mind because I think he is aware of it. But just to be sure that we are all on the same page: I avoid all animal products, not just meat.

WarK wrote:I'd say that's a lot if the objective is to decrease animal suffering.

Thank you for your understanding.

WarK wrote:Humans have been relying on animals for millennia. It's hard to expect a quick change in this regard.

I agree with what you said. However, I think what SD was saying is that growing my own vegetables would be quick and easy. As long as he is not talking about crops, he may be correct, and hopefully one day I will find out.

"Violent ideologies have a special set of defenses that enable humane people to support inhumane practices and to not even realize what they're doing." (Melanie Joy)

The Vegan Liar wrote:Yes you do, you are in denial. The perfection that you demand is your personal standard for what you think a vegan should do.

You are now being blatantly, outwardly, openly, shamelessly dishonest - therefore there is no need to address, or even read anything else you write.

I have told you, several times that this is NOT the case. I even elaborated by mentioning some of the things that would NOT be reasonably expected of a vegan. You, sir, are a liar.

I said, you are not and should not be expected to cease things like driving, taking transport, or to dispose of all your possessions that will likely have involved animal deaths as a result of their production. No one is going to frown upon you for accidentally stepping on an ant, or as Wark hilariously points out swallowing a fly while cycling or something. That doesn't diminish any vegan-ness at all. And no sane person will criticize you for accidentally chopping a worm in half when planting your seeds. But we don't need to worry about that one because you don't do that anyway. How in the blue fuck is this requiring perfection?

Enjoy your weeds, I'm off for a steak. In fact I don't think I'll even bother to kill the cow first, I'll just sneak up on it and hack off a chunk and eat it raw in front of it. All in your name, Vego, all in your name. I hope you're impressed with your performance in this argument, because no one else seems to be. With the possible exception of Wark.

That's already been covered in quite some detail in this thread. I see vego has replied to you on this question. He is more or less correct in his explanation, but I'll point out a problem with his reply:

Vego wrote:It doesn't really "require" it in principle, it's just that in practice small animals interfere with crop production and they have to be removed on purpose (through various means including pesticides and predators/dogs) or are killed accidentally by the harvesting machines. It is a valid concern, and one that I did not ignore despite claims to the contrary. however it is not one that can be easily addressed at the consumer level.

Vego is correct in saying (well, implying) that "require" isn't really the right word. It's a direct consequence of it. It's also incorrect to state that animals interfere with crop production, it's backwards. Crop production interferes with animals in their natural habitat. It actually could be addressed, at least to some degree, but nobody can be bothered. I used to (and still occasionally do) operate the combine. If a group of vegans had ever asked me "Hey SD, can we walk like 50 yards in front of the combine to check for animals so you don't shred them" I'd have said "Sure, knock your selves out"

And before anyone cries "that's ridiculous" - no, it isn't. It's no more ridiculous than a stroll on a Sunday afternoon or whenever you can fit it in. It's only a few like minded people walking in a field. Anyone doing that small thing? Thought not.